On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive sets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05506v2
• Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:03:25 GMT
• Title: On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive sets
• Authors: Mohammed Elaroussi, Lhouari Nourine, Mohammed Said Radjef and Simon Vilmin
• Abstract summary: We consider the case where an argumentation framework is naive-bijective. We show that it is tractable for frameworks with bounded in-degree.
• Score: 0.2580765958706853
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper deals with the problem of finding the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by means of a bijection with the naive sets of another framework. First, we consider the case where an argumentation framework is naive-bijective: its naive sets and preferred extensions are equal. Recognizing naive-bijective argumentation frameworks is hard, but we show that it is tractable for frameworks with bounded in-degree. Next, we give a bijection between the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework being admissible-closed (the intersection of two admissible sets is admissible) and the naive sets of another framework on the same set of arguments. On the other hand, we prove that identifying admissible-closed argumentation frameworks is coNP-complete. At last, we introduce the notion of irreducible self-defending sets as those that are not the union of others. It turns out there exists a bijection between the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework and the naive sets of a framework on its irreducible self-defending sets. Consequently, the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks with some lattice properties can be listed with polynomial delay and polynomial space.

Related papers

• Cyclic Supports in Recursive Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks: Semantics and LP Mapping [19.799266797193344]
  We present classical semantics for the Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) and the Recursive BAF (Rec-BAF) This is achieved by providing a modular definition of the sets of defeated and acceptable elements for each BAF-based framework. We also characterize, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of general BAF and Rec-BAF in terms of logic programming and partial stable model semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T16:06:16Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework [0.0]
  Phan Minh Dung proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. This thesis showcases two such extensions -- value-based argumentation framework by Trevor Bench-Capon (2002) and semi-abstract argumentation framework by Esther Anna Corsi and Christian Ferm" The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. Firstly, the new semi-abstract value-based argumentation framework is introduced. This framework maps propositional formulae associated with individual arguments to a set of ordered values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T13:10:56Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• A Measure-Theoretic Axiomatisation of Causality [55.6970314129444]
  We argue in favour of taking Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic axiomatisation of probability as the starting point towards an axiomatisation of causality. Our proposed framework is rigorously grounded in measure theory, but it also sheds light on long-standing limitations of existing frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T13:15:48Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• Stability in Abstract Argumentation [2.375764121997739]
  We show how the notion of stability can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. We illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-23T10:34:38Z)
• Technical Report of "Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal" [1.3706331473063877]
  In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule. In unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-07T17:19:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.